Within hours of the appeals court's action Friday, the four plaintiffs who in 2009 sued to overturn the ban had exchanged vows during hastily arranged ceremonies that drew crowds of well-wishers as the news spread that the weddings were back on.

"I was at work," lead plaintiff Kristen Perry said, adding that she rushed home to Berkeley to change into a gray suit so she could marry her now-wife Sandra Stier at San Francisco City Hall.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris declared Perry and Stier "spouses for life" as hundreds of supporters looked on and cheered from the balconies ringing the couple's perch under City Hall's rotunda. The other couple in the Supreme Court case, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, was married at Los Angeles City Hall 90 minutes later wearing matching white rose boutonnières and with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa presiding.

Continue Reading...

Though wedding bells may be weeks away, same-sex couples and their supporters filled city blocks of San Francisco and West Hollywood on Wednesday night to savor the long awaited decisions as thumping music resounded.

"Today the words emblazoned across the Supreme Court ring true: equal justice under law," said Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs who challenged California's gay marriage ban, as he celebrated in West Hollywood.

In one of two 5-4 rulings, the high court cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California, holding that the coalition of religious conservative groups that qualified a voter-approved ban for the ballot did not have the authority to defend it after state officials refused. The justices thus let stand a San Francisco trial court's ruling in August 2010 that overturned the ban.

In the other, the court wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, putting legally married gay couples on equal federal footing with all other married Americans, allowing them to receive the same tax, health and pension benefits.

Continue Reading...

Her ordinarily routine request still is being debated more than four years later, and by the likes of former attorneys general, a slew of senators, the Obama administration and possibly this week, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because Golinski is married to another woman and works for the U.S. government, her claim for benefits has morphed into a multi-layered legal challenge to a 1996 law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing unions like hers.

The high court has scheduled a closed-door conference for Friday to review Golinski's case and four others that also seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.

The purpose of the meeting is to decide which, if any, to put on the court's schedule for arguments next year.

Continue Reading...

Lawyers for backers of the ban argued at a hearing Monday that Walker should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict.

Walker publicly revealed after he retired in February that he is in a 10-year relationship with a man. Rumors that he was gay had circulated before and after he presided over the trial in early 2010.

Ware said the ruling by Walker, who did not attend Monday's hearing, raised important questions and called it the first case in which a judge's same-sex relationship had led to calls for disqualification.

Continue Reading...

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said he would issue a decision within 24 hours after a hearing Monday in which lawyers trying to salvage the ban posed an unprecedented legal argument questioning Judge Vaughn Walker's impartiality when he issued last year's landmark ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

The lawyers insisted that Walker, who was chief judge of the Northern District of California at the time, should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict.

"It now appears that Judge Walker, at the time the complaint was filed and throughout this litigation, occupied precisely those same shoes as the plaintiffs," attorney Charles Cooper said.

Ware, who inherited the Proposition 8 case from the now-retired Walker, asked why Cooper assumed Walker had any intention of getting married, just because he was in a decade-old relationship.

Continue Reading...

Victim Jaycee Dugard was 11 when she was abducted by Phillip and Nancy Garrido as her stepfather watched her walk toward a school bus. She gave birth to two daughters fathered by Garrido while he held her in a secret backyard compound.

The defendants, both wearing orange jumpsuits, made no eye contact with anyone in the courtroom and kept their heads down as Dugard's mother, Terry Probyn, read her daughter's statement at the hearing. Dugard, now 31, was not present in court.

"I chose not to be here today because I refuse to waste another second of my life in your presence," Dugard wrote in a portion of the statement directed to Phillip Garrido. "Everything you ever did to me was wrong and I hope one day you will see that.

"I hated every second of every day for 18 years," she said "You stole my life and that of my family."

It was Dugard's first public statement since she was found 22 months ago.

Continue Reading...

The request came after the California Supreme Court said it needed the rest of the year to consider a legal question the appeals court said it needs answered before it can resolve the case.

In her letter to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, state Attorney General Kamala Harris said the sponsors of the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, were unlikely to prevail in their appeal to reinstate the ban that was struck down by a trial judge.

Keeping Proposition 8 in effect therefore violates the civil rights of gay Californians, Harris said.

"The public interest weighs heavily against the government sanctioning such discrimination by permitting it to continue," she wrote.

Harris also said the case for allowing gay marriage was bolstered by the Obama administration's announcement last week that it would no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Continue Reading...

The sponsors of Proposition 8 so far have taken the lead in defending the voter-approved law in court, after former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to do so.

But the sponsors' right to keep defending the law recently came under question, threatening the viability of the case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

If successful, the move by Imperial County could salvage the appeal, allowing county officials to step in as the primary defendants if the sponsors are removed.

Imperial County officials claim they should be allowed to intervene as defendants, saying they are directly affected by the law because they would be forced to perform gay marriages.

But the appeals court dismissed the request last month, questioning why the head county clerk, who issues marriage licenses, wasn't part of the case. Then Imperial County Clerk Dolores Provencio declined to join.

Continue Reading...

The lawsuit filed in federal district court in San Francisco also seeks to have the ban on openly gay troops declared unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable for any service members.

"I don't feel like I'm going up against the military, I really don't. I just feel like this is a necessary step for doing away with this policy," said former Air Force Staff Sergeant Anthony Loverde. "I believe the military, the majority of troops I've served with and those who have been studied to death are with us."

The 31-year-old Loverde is working in Iraq for a private military contractor that's providing the Army with technical support. The lawsuit was also filed on behalf of former Air Force Major Michael Almy, 40, and former Navy Petty Officer Second Class Jason Knight, 28.

The legal action comes four days after the U.S. Senate for the second time this year blocked a military spending bill that also would have repealed the 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

Continue Reading...

The hearing before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also focused on whether supporters of voter-approved Proposition 8 have legal standing to challenge a lower court ruling that the ban was unconstitutional.

The judges did not issue an immediate ruling.

C-SPAN piped the nearly three-hour hearing into law schools, courthouses, community centers and elsewhere across the country, giving the public outside the courtroom its first -- and possibly last -- direct look at the debate raging in the federal case.

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked a lower court from broadcasting the full trial earlier this year, and the high court has a blanket ban on televising its own proceedings. That means the issue would be blacked out if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, as many legal experts and lawyers on both sides believe it will.

Continue Reading...

If the courtroom had been a boxing ring, the referee would have called a TKO.

Yet lawyers for the ban's sponsors say their side was on the ropes for a reason: They disputed that live testimony and reams of evidence were relevant to a lawsuit against the voter-approved Proposition 8, so they did not provide it. In their view, the proceedings were a "a show trial," and they were willing to invite the unfavorable verdict they eventually got while betting they would win in a later round where the ground rules would be different.

"Something that has been lost sight of is who has the burden of proof in this case," Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for Proposition 8's sponsors, said at the 13-day-long trial's close. "The burden is not on the defendants and the people who voted for Prop 8."

Continue Reading...

The threat rattled nerves in San Francisco and beyond and marked the latest in a series of airline scares in the past year.

American Airlines Flight 24 was grounded at San Francisco International airport at about 7:30 a.m. Thursday. Passengers were removed from the plane and taken by buses to a terminal where they were sent through security again.

Passenger Michael Kidd told The Associated Press that he saw uniformed police officers handcuffing a young man and a young woman sitting in the back row.

A law enforcement official told The Associated Press that the threat call originated from a hotel in nearby Alameda to the city's police department Thursday, and officials there quickly notified federal authorities. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to release the information.

Another person close to the investigation says it was a hijack threat. Details about the call were not immediately clear.

Continue Reading...

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in a case that many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- California voters had sound reasons and were not motivated by anti-gay bias when they outlawed same-sex unions in 2008, sponsors of the ban said Monday while urging a federal appeals court to stop gay weddings from resuming.

Continue Reading...

The appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was expected, as lawyers on both sides of the legal battle repeatedly vowed to carry the fight to a higher court if they lost.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco overturned California's Proposition 8, which restricts a marriage to one man and one woman. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the law violates federal equal protections and due process laws.

The 9th Circuit court has no deadlines to hear the case, which will be randomly assigned to a three-judge panel. It's expected that the panel will order both sides to submit written legal arguments before scheduling a hearing.

The outcome in the appeals court could force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to wed.

"This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which helped fund the 2008 campaign that led to the ban's passage.

Continue Reading...

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

Continue Reading...

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has reached a decision on whether to uphold or overturn the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8 and plans to publish his opinion in the afternoon, court spokeswoman Lynn Fuller said.

His verdict comes in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Attorneys on both sides have said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

Continue Reading...

The Oakland City Council will look Tuesday at licensing four production plants where pot would be grown, packaged and processed into items ranging from baked goods to body oil.

The move has some marijuana advocates worried that regulations intended to bring order to the industry and new revenues to local governments could drive small "mom and pop" growers out of business. They complain that industrial-scale gardens would harm the environment, reduce quality and leave consumers with fewer strains from which to choose.

The proposal's supporters counter that unregulated growers working in covert warehouses or houses are tax scofflaws more likely to wreak environmental havoc, be motivated purely by profit and produce inferior products.

Continue Reading...

The study by the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center predicts that retail prices for high-grade marijuana could drop from $375 an ounce under the state's current medical marijuana law to as little as $38 per ounce if voters approve a November ballot initiative authorizing counties to license and tax commercial pot sales to adults.

"Right now, when individuals purchase drugs, they are paying for the drug dealer taking risks of being arrested," Beau Kilmer, the center's co-director and the report's lead author, said.

But apart from creating sizable price cuts, little seems certain about how the measure, known as Proposition 19, would affect the cash-strapped state's budget or pot's popularity, according to the RAND researchers. RAND, a nonprofit think tank headquartered in Santa Monica, Calif., paid for the research to educate voters ahead of the election, Kilmer said.

Continue Reading...

Attorney Charles Cooper delivered his closing argument as the case challenging the constitutionality of voter-approved Proposition 8 resumed.

Cooper said societies around the world have always seen marriage as a way to keep children from being born out of wedlock.

"The historical record leaves no doubt, your honor, none whatsoever, that the central purpose of marriage in all societies at virtually all times is to channel procreative relationships into stable relationships to ensure that offspring that result from those relationships are raised in those stable relationships," Cooper said.

Even as he tried to elaborate, Cooper's statement drew a series of challenges from Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker, who is presiding over the lawsuit filed by two same-sex couples who claim the ban is a violation of their civil rights.

Walker asked if people get married to benefit their communities or themselves? Weren't similar arguments once used to keep interracial couples from marrying? And if procreation is so central to marriage, why doesn't the state refuse to sanction marriage by infertile couples or couples who choose to remain childless?

Continue Reading...

Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker has given them a list of 39 questions he expects answered before he delivers his verdict.

After a months-long hiatus, Walker is scheduled to wrap the trial up on Wednesday.

Among Walker's questions for lawyers representing gay rights advocates and Proposition 8's sponsors are whether there is any proof that allowing gay men and lesbians to wed would reduce discrimination against them.

He also wants to know whether limiting marriage to a man and a woman improves the odds that children will be raised by a married mom and dad.

Continue Reading...